David has practised commercial litigation since he started at the Bar and continues to do so in Silk. His experience covers all manner of cases but now has a particular focus on commercial litigation, including allegations of fraud; mortgages and asset recovery; company and shareholder disputes.
Recent examples of David’s work include:
- advising and representing a major local authority in respect of a dispute with the developer of a strategically important site in the city (China Town Development Company Ltd v Liverpool City Council  EWHC 3347 (Ch));
- successfully appearing at trial for the company claimant to recover a loan made to its former director involving the cross-examination of expert witnesses on the value of alleged security for the loan (Autocal Holdings Ltd v Jeffery  EWHC 907 (Ch));
- obtaining permission to appeal and to rely on fresh evidence (Kang v Singh  EWHC 598 (Ch)) and then successfully appealing an order for possession made in proceedings between English and Canadian parties.
- successfully defending a shareholder dispute on a preliminary issue about the effect of an earlier compromise agreement (Utilise TDS Ltd v Davies  EWHC 2127 (Ch));
Prior to taking Silk, David led in the Court of Appeal for one of the respondents in Denton v White  EWCA Civ 906, dealing with the proper approach to be taken on an application for relief from sanction under CPR 3.9.
China Town Development Company Limited v Liverpool City Council  EWHC 3347 (Ch): Appeared for Liverpool in a dispute with the developer of a strategically important site in the city
Autocal Holdings Limited v Jeffery  EWHC 907 (Ch): Appeared at trial for the successful company claimant seeking to recover a loan made to its former director involving the cross-examination of expert witnesses on the value of alleged security for the loan
Kang v Singh  EWHC 598 (Ch): Obtained permission to appeal and rely on fresh evidence and then appeared for the successful appellants in possession proceedings between English and Canadian parties
2017: Appeared on behalf of a major utilities provider in proceedings brought against a sub-contractor and its directors in respect of over-charging involving obtaining a freezing injunction and then going on to achieve a compromise soon after
Utilise TDS Limited v Davies  EWHC 2127 (Ch): Appeared for one of the defendants in the substantive proceedings and succeeded in having the claim against him dismissed based on the true effect of an earlier compromise agreement made between the claimant and another defendant
Utilise TDS Limited v Davies & Bolton College  EWCA Civ 906: Appeared for one of the respondents in the Court of Appeal when three cases were heard together and fresh guidance was issued on the way in which CPR 3.9 was to be applied on applications for relief from sanction, following the decision in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd. (Reported as Denton v TH White Ltd and other appeals.)
Montpellier Estates Limited v Leeds City Council  EWHC 1343 (QB);  EWHC 166 (QB): Successfully defending a huge deceit claim (valued at in excess of £35million; trial lasted 35 days) brought in the context of the procurement exercise for the Leeds Arena.
The Sonae Group Limited (2013): Acting on an urgent basis for the insured defendant to a large number of personal injury claims brought in respect of a fire at commercial premises, successfully overturning the grant of a freezing injunction obtained against the defendant.
Willett v Economy Power  EWCA Civ 1164;  BPIR 1298: Appearing at trial and on appeal for Economy Power.